I really love issues like this. It proves my point that international law is worthless.
Theres already very little incentive to follow international law. On top of this incentive structure you add a very restrictive reading of it as well. Bombing? Against international law. Not feeding your opponent? Against international law. Blowing up structures? Against international law. Now were at a submarine sinking a ship is against international law and apparently a sub is also supposed to rescue 100 sailors despite the fact that they would outnumber the crew and possibly take over the sub.
The only way that international law will let you fight is by lining your troops up and running them straight into opposing gunfire.
Keep it up libtards. The more people see that international law is unreasonable the more people will refuse to follow it even if they were inclined to.
Theres already very little incentive to follow international law. On top of this incentive structure you add a very restrictive reading of it as well. Bombing? Against international law. Not feeding your opponent? Against international law. Blowing up structures? Against international law. Now were at a submarine sinking a ship is against international law and apparently a sub is also supposed to rescue 100 sailors despite the fact that they would outnumber the crew and possibly take over the sub.
The only way that international law will let you fight is by lining your troops up and running them straight into opposing gunfire.
Keep it up libtards. The more people see that international law is unreasonable the more people will refuse to follow it even if they were inclined to.





